“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

―

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

================

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now. To be clear. I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘some job’ perspective because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job”perspective.

OK … I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked, you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok. To be fair. I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because, well, I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills. I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge, but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job, but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could, well, “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility, it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear. There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization. They tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists, but they do exist.

Anyway. My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs. 90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.” This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder. That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively. Not all leaders and hirers can. Some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way, not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fricking job.”

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo, but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this ‘less than obvious skill set’ and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, we have a president who believes anyone can do any job and keeps hiring people who may be smart <and may not be … because I, frankly, question whether the President is smart> for positions they have no or little qualifications for that position.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient. Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In a presidency your lack of self-awareness can create some real country repercussions – and we are seeing some of that lack of effectiveness now.

I recently reread Peter Drucker ‘s “No More Salvation by Society” (from his really interesting 1989 book called “the new realities”) in which Drucker reflects on how businesses, governments <and politics> were shifting their focus on delivering ‘an everlasting society which achieves both social perfection and individual perfection’ to seeking ‘economic salvation.’ Let me translate that: ‘money began to matter more than doing the right thing.’

Ok. That is a big concept and a big thought. And I as I read it it seemed to encapsulate an issue that really bother me about how many of today’s businesses (and management) are being run.

But, first, my caveat. Drucker is a frickin’ brilliant thinker. But. I recognize that Drucker’s writing can seduce you into thinking his ideas and thinking are your one true love. He tantalizes you with obscure facts and references and tucks you in with a nice warm theory that makes you dream big thoughts. And while most known for management theory he has written brilliant thinking on government, politics, ideology as well as business.

So, please note, while I love his thinking I believe, as with most theorists, taking it as the holy grail is fraught with peril.

That said. His thought on Management and businesses and there is “no more salvation by society” is valid. And I believe the issue is more relevant and important today then even in 1989 when he offered up the concept in “the new realities.”

Ok. The idea of Salvation by Society.

At its core it suggests businesses, and managers, have a responsibility to Society by creating ‘better people.’ Better as in values, moral compass and, in general, ‘do the right thing’ attitudes and behavior.

So no one is confused it is not about salvation through religion <although he does suggest at some point that in the vacuum created by the departure of businesses in this role that religion would attempt to step in>, but instead the idea revolves around creating better citizens through conducting life within a ‘better business behavior’ construct. That is not our current business environment because business went through “the shift.” The shift reflects Drucker’s basic premise is that at some point beginning in maybe the 70’s functioning society changed direction from societal priorities to economic priorities. In other words, we shifted from a society being driven by social power <values based> to a society driven by purchasing power. This big shift was driven by the fact politics <and politicians> began integrating economic promise into their platforms thereby replacing social betterment (or salvation by society) as a governmental platform. Simply said, ultimately, the holy grail became “increasing the purchasing power.”

Interestingly he foresaw several things <that will resonate as we think about it>.

He believed the disappearance of the belief in salvation by society would create an anti-society environment and that salvation could only be achieved outside society, i.e., only in and through the person <he even suggests a withdrawal from society>.

Once again. A Bruce translation.

Let’s call this the growth of a “me” generation or “what’s in it for me” philosophy <which embodies today’s business world AND the push back we are also seeing>. He may have meant it in a slightly different way, but that is how his idea came to life. He said in 1989 that the death of the belief in salvation by society, which for 200 years had been the most dynamic force in the politics of the west and increasingly globally, created the rise of economic salvation (and a void in societal values … or salvation).

Once again. This is not salvation by faith but rather Salvation by Society <... values wherein we do the right thing for the greater good. Empower the weak. Make the tide rise higher for all morally>.

And, I agree with Drucker, we sacrificed that “higher” direction at some point.

Now. This is a really big issue which has implications in the business management world (at a later date he addressed further implications in “Management as Social Function and Liberal Art”) as well as individual homes <and heads> and government.

Anyway. Some thoughts.

about the blurring of the 99%

At the time he wrote New Realities the disparity between the haves and the have-nots was not as extreme as we have it today. But in a way he foretold it as we shifted from “salvation by society.” By exploiting a common interest in prosperity we have created a ‘blurring of the 99%.’ The blurring began as instead of “quality” interests <social and cultural values and styles> policies and programs were being developed to focus on individual ‘spending power.’

As he suggested:

… blue collar workers are clearly blue collar workers and yet in their lifestyle there is little left of working class except possibly preference of beer over wine. Their concerns are material … a motor home, a fishing cabin and retirement pension. They see exactly the same television programs as everybody else. They have exactly the same access to web based knowledge as everybody else. They buy the same consumer goods in the same supermarkets and they often take similar vacations. They do different work but they no longer lead different lives. They define status not through their economic interests <social and cultural values & styles> but rather through their spending power.

I don’t mean to disregard those within the poverty level, but the reality is that it is difficult to discern massive differences within the 99%. Upper middle class is burdened with debt & upside down mortgages and lower middle class <the traditional blue collar> is actually relatively unchanged in their wealth situation. ‘Spending power’ is, through different formulas, of equal status.

salvation, society & government

Someone will point out, as Drucker also did, it seems to many of us that politicians and governments are pounding the “anti government” in their rhetoric, yet, they are anything but.

They do not look upon government as the organ to produce a better let alone a perfect society. They see the function of government in specifics – to improve American competitiveness, to cut back the power of British trade unions, to make renters home owners, to improve farm productivity. The role and the function of government is perceived as different and so is its ultimate aim.

So, beyond the blurring of the 99%, government is currently built upon the foundation of individual purchasing power which, ultimately, feeds the ‘wants’, not the needs, of the 99%. In other words. Their programs are not about producing a better society, but rather ‘creating disposable income.’

In addition, even if government wanted to shift focus to bettering society, we have increasingly come to doubt that there is “one right answer” to any social problem. There are wrong answers for sure but we understand that social issues are much too complex to admit a simple answer. If they can be solved at all they always need several solutions – none of which individually are quite right. Sounds obvious doesn’t it?

Well. Here is a problem.

In order to have popular appeal in today’s world, any promise of “salvation by society” must be a simple “this is the only way” (or at minimum ‘this is the best way by far’). Nuance, ambiguity or even multidimensional solutions struggle to survive in today’s world. This increases the difficulty of re-finding our inner societal soul.

about society

In society, with the emphasis of authority, leadership, legitimacy, hierarchy, interdependence and individual desires all focused on purchasing power, rather than ethical responsibility as the ultimate evaluation of what is happening in society and how people act, it is not difficult to see how society issues suffer in the pursuit of achievements & output rather than what is put into the achievement and output.

Ultimately Drucker outlines global implications with all societies and individuals:

– At the heart of Drucker’s explanation about the world economy is that the world economy will become a non-national flow of money and information as well as the trade within cross-border alliances. This translates into daily money flow exceeding what is needed to finance international trade and investment for several months <domestic economy may look completely different>.

– Information transactions (e.g., face-to-face, print, Internet, movies, and videos) are even larger and are “…probably growing faster than any other category of transaction in economic history.” <note: this does not suggest substantive transactions just an increase in quantity of transactions>.

Both of those leads us to the fact that the driver for growth, prosperity, and employment for every developed nation has become the international economy, i.e., globalization.

This also translates into the truth a domestic economy and international economies are relatively indistinguishable except in a political, social, cultural, and psychological sense. On a side note, we should all note, we continue to focus most of our discussions ‘domestic – only’ and in fact we tend to lean toward an isolationist, or at minimum, a domestic policy as a stand alone. That thought is contrary to the actual economic reality (therefore we continue to have economic inefficiencies and strife).

I point that out because in our simplistic dialogue over economics and ‘purchasing power’ we miss the opportunity to showcase that attaining the highest value of meaning and economics when all interests are aligned: self, business, country, global. For it is within that value chain the “I” (self) sees intrinsic value in what they do in the grander narrative and global benefits because it is empowered by a collection of people and their ideas & work.

That said. Domestically countries can take steps to elevate society to the benefit of economy. Drucker <remember … this is 1989> outlines how the Asian-rim nations (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore … he did not foresee China at that time) have become the models for trade policy. Each of these nations has refrained from managing short-term economic fluctuations; rather, they have invested heavily in education and training, rewarded saving and investment, and penalized consumption. Also, these nations have given priority to performance on the world economy over domestic economic performance. In other words. They focused on a healthy society, attitudinally, ethically and skills, in order to achieve economic success.

Regardless. All these issues, and all aspects of, feed into a society that is becoming dysfunctional.

society is sick

More important than the economic issues there are unresolved societal problems of attending to the common good. We are increasingly unable to address the problems of society and “…in every developed country, society is becoming sicker.”

The issue is exacerbated by the fact that as businesses fail at their commitment to society <see my next post … worldly desires> the government began establishing huge bureaucracies to attempt to address the issues … and have failed to measure up to the problem.

Drucker suggested a rise in “volunteerism” to fill the absence of this salvation thru businesses/government, but I believe he ignores the overwhelming stress on time with people in today’s age. In my eyes salvation by society needs to be reestablished within ‘existing hours’ <not volunteer hours> therefore businesses need to begin re-assuming its responsibilities to society.

The incompetence of government in solving social problems is not solely the government’s fault. It is more a reflection of lack of alignment between people’s attitudes & behavior throughout the day, i.e., their work life and out-of-work life.

We invest a lot of energy focused on “economy” (is it good, or bad, or improving, or sucking, or whatever …) and we don’t invest a lot of energy on society and the health of the citizenship.

We also seem to blame governments a lot.

And yet, I imagine, if I were to do a survey with two databases, one of typical households and one of business owners, and ask how they assess the health of their respective homes/businesses that by far the number one response would be an economic/monetary assessment. A balance sheet or balance statement assessment first and foremost.

I say that to make a point that this is about alignment, shared responsibility, and a shared sense of priorities. To say government has a responsibility to society is to only complete a portion of the successful formula. Business is of, and within, society & community.

Anyway. It may have been written in 1989, but Peter Drucker’s “the new realities” is thought provoking when examining the issues of today. I would argue business, even more than government, can solve a sick society and establish the underpinnings of, well, salvation.

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

—

Lee Iacocca

=================

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

—–

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok. Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 50something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole point we face today. I also believe we are facing the dying rattle of these old white men’s grasp on how business is conducted.

That said. Let me spend a minute on old white men <and I have the right to do so because I am one> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost” and maximize “converting that win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men have guided business to a level of so-called “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which, in reality, were hollow attitudes, wins which were in reality reflection of hollow behaviors & techniques, and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business. I could argue, and will, “hollowing” has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history, but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989, as I noted in Salvation by Society, and we old white men could have eyed the arc and, well, stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul, but rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

But old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. Focusing on brands permitted old white men to hollow out the substantive work of creating products & services of substance. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

Profit

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed or <b> created at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders, it should feed society.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>.

Old white men hollowed out the middle. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this, but, suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them.

Communication

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. Effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication, inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab of “here is all you need to know” <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”>

ROI

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

But old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind. Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity. They saw people as investments, like manufacturing robots, rather than, well, people.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & told 5 things they did & said that were racist in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publically espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. All the while they believed white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racists – racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

Behavior

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’ Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness, they simply propagated it.

All that said. These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better America’ or even “a better way of conducting business” from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’, but solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins and their own interests.

I get angry. I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to greatness. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point. And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

Look. This can be solved. And it can be solved by, well, old guys like me.

==============================

“At any other time it’s better. You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

Dexter Palmer

===================

Old white men created the problems and as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther: “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the hollowness problem in one fell swoop. I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men), who have chafed in this hollow existence, could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected. This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point. I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men.

“I am confident that, in the end, common sense and justice will prevail.

I’m an optimist, brought up on the belief that if you wait to the end of the story, you get to see the good people live happily ever after. “

—

Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam

====================

Well. I, frankly, cannot see how anyone could go through life without any optimism. I don’t see how anyone could live anything other than a fairly dismal life if all you did was embrace cynicism & skepticism. Fortunately, I do not believe many people are that completely dismal. I tend to believe most people believe common sense and justice may not always prevail, but certainly has better than even odds of prevailing in Life.

I actually think the bigger issue is that we sometimes feel suffocated by negativity and perceived ‘badness’ all around us. It can seem crushing on occasion. So crushing that it sometimes seems like it is more powerful than justice … and certainly more powerful than common sense.

Well. Certainly hope requires thinking. But thinking far too often remains just that … thinking … and no doing.

Lunch bucket hope is about putting in the work.

Lunch bucket hope is about full dreaming and not hollow promises.

Lunch bucket hope is about the harsh truths and not ignoring truths.

Lunch bucket hope is about recognizing ‘what is’ can change but ‘what will be’ will not happen magically.

This lunch bucket attitude combined with optimism, at its core, brings a belief that nothing may work. but that everything might work.

It is about understanding that there is no one silver bullet to solve something or to dramatically turn things around, but understanding that if you try 100 different things and each one makes even a little impact that there will be progress <and you get just a bit closer to what you hope>.

It is about recognizing that Life is rarely simple cause and effect and more likely a series of complex intertwined events <not chaos>.

It is about seeing that Life is always a work in progress where many times progress is difficult to distinguish from stagnancy.

It is about seeing that change, more often than not, is neither spectacular nor disruptive, but rather subtle nudges easily overlooked.

And … it is about only being confident that common sense and justice will prevail if you bring a lunch bucet attitude along with your optimism & hope.

This permits my type of optimism to not be some kind-hearted pushover, but rather one capable of yelling, sharing hard feedback and resilient to a world which, very often, brings an even harsher cynicism.

My type of optimism defends the arc of history which embraces good against the attacks of bad … which relentlessly seek to slow the natural arc of progress.

And, yet, as I defend what I view a the good arc of history I bring a legitimate care for the world at large along with, what could be viewed as cold & harsh, a view in which I may simply see people as the actors on the stage of this greater world.

I do believe kindness & generosity differentiate performance; not successes & wins. This is not an easy task the pragmatic optimists take on. It demands that you have to do hard things and sometimes be hard in how you deal with Life … all the while keeping kindness in your heart.

I once used Jamie Varon’s words to say I am a professional aspirationalist. <That’s not a word, but I’ve made it into one, since there was nothing that could quite describe me because I didn’t want to say I’m a “professional dreamer” because that sounds like some hippie shit. I have aspirations, like, lots of them.>

===================

“I am not afraid of my truth anymore and I will not omit pieces of me to make you comfortable.”

Alex Elle

=====

I believe being a professional aspirationalist helps me to be a little more confident that common sense & justice & ‘good’ will prevail in today’s world.

I believe this because professional aspirationalist is a compass and not a destination. It is a direction.

Aspirationalist is a moving target.

Being an aspirationalist means not only having dreams, but dreaming and, yet, I remain a pragmatic optimist. It means I am restlessly pursing what is good and better … relentlessly seeking, traveling, doing, thinking … professionally constantly in motion <mentally or physically>.

To be clear.

All of this is not for the faint of heart.

All of this is not easy.

All of this is often an eternal struggle against a shitload of negative forces in the world.

But. Isn’t all of that truly what being yourself is all about?

Isn’t Life, and living it, sort of about having some courage to suggest ‘I will not omit things just to make you comfortable’ and finding your own version of bravery?

======

“I am a world that cannot be explored in one day. I am not a place for cowards.”

Caitlyn Siehl

======

I imagine my point is that today’s world, in general, is not a place and time for cowards.

In addition, being a pragmatic optimist means you are not a place for cowards. I say that because pragmatic optimism, professional aspirationalist, all these types of thoughts are not simply about being a dreamer, all these thoughts have rich & royal hues of reality threading its way through its fabric.

And you are forced to not be a coward because this pragmatic optimism demands people to think about dreaming, but also demands doing.

Pragmatically, we cynical optimists, aspirationalists as it were, do seek approval and acceptance and we do seek to actually do shit (albeit ‘good shit’).

Now … I could argue, whether you like it or not, whether you think it is right or wrong, in some form or fashion we all care.

We all care <not just aspirationalists> about all of this shit <and shit in general>.

We all care what the people around us think about us. And by people I mean everyone from those closest to you <who would most likely accept you in any shape and form you ended up in> to society overall.

And we all care about good shit happening rather than bad shit.

And we all care about providing some value to the world.

Uhm.

But maybe that is where being a cynical optimist, a practical dream, a professional aspirationalist has an edge in today’s world.

We do not seek solely finding value from proving ourselves to others.

We don’t accept solely finding value in and of ourselves.

We seek finding value in uncovering pragmatic ways that our optimism can come to Life.

The value resides in the fact that the proof exists in our optimism being vindicated.

In the end.

It may very well be my timeand the time for people who think as I do. We cynical optimists. And I am okay with that.

================

“It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, “Wait on time.”

It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives.

The future is an inﬁnite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

–

Howard Zinn

====

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

=========================

I get a little concerned, on occasion, that in the business world kindness is considered a negative thing. Simplistically, there is a general impression that if you are kind, or nice, you are not tough — or tough enough to assume the more difficult responsibilities. At this attitude’s worst dimension it breeds a belief ‘assholes win’, therefore, ‘be an asshole.’

To be clear. There is a shitload of empty rhetoric of ‘playing nice’ and ‘team playing’, but that is from an overall organizational perspective not a management track perspective. For on a parallel track to the ‘be kind/play well’ is the “the toughest fighters are the leaders.” Note I said “parallel track.”

Now. Aspects of that latter point are true but it seems like everyone forgets to add onto that thought … “but that doesn’t mean you need to be so at the expense of kindness.” In other words, they shouldn’t be thought of as a “this or that” or “either/or.” Once again, in the business world, it seems like we are encouraged to believe in the completely fucked up thinking of “one thing and one thing only.”

When asked the question “What is the one most important attribute of a great manager?” near the top of the list: “ability to make the tough decision” <implication: you need to be tough above all>.

And while I could argue whether I am exactly right on what I am now going to share, the reality is that one of the most important attributes of a great manager is actually“ability to make the tough decision without losing sight of kindness.”

One attribute can actually be a combination of things and not just “one.” For some absurd reason we tend to believe that people will be torn between these two opposing forces. That we will naturally gravitate toward one or the other and, therefore, be battling what we believe is right rather than effectively doing the job.

Well. It is a battle when you are younger in business and is a battle worth fighting <even if you get it wrong on occasion>. Just as in military training the more experience I get the more likely I will win the battle the next time <assuming I survive>. The point is that if you make the bold choice to incorporate kindness from day one <which no one seems to be pragmatically encouraging young people to do so> by the time you become a real manager and leader it just becomes something you do without thinking about it.

Yeah. I did just use the world “bold.”

I did so because in today’s world everyday kindness, and done so consistently, is both a bold pioneering statement in a “eat the little fish” world. And, yet, this bold personal decision can offer some amazing rewards.

Several years ago I had to offer ’20 things about Me’ to a company and within it I shared this as my #1 thing:

– My grandfather

The greatest man I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. A simple kind man who honored integrity, kindness and truth above all. He taught me more about me, life and how to live Life <without overtly teaching> than anyone I have ever known. He remains my North Star for my life. I can only hope to be half the man he ever was … but at least he gave me something to aim for.

It was in that same piece I also shared his:

– Spike Lee

I was in my early 30’s in the audience when I heard Spike Lee say these words about his films … “I recognize everything I do impacts how people think … and even what they do … I have a responsibility every time I create anything.” It changed how I viewed what I did and actually how I did it moving forward. Basically … I began assuming responsibility.

So. What the heck does my white conservative non bombastic grandfather have to do with Spike Lee?

Choice.

Yep.

Choice.

Deciding to be successful and be kind is a choice. And a big choice given the kind of shit they try and teach you far too often in business these days. Assuming responsibility for kindness, well, impacts everything. It is one of those ‘ripple affect’ type choices – with benefits in the present and in the future. Spike Lee reminded me ‘choice’ needs to be represented in the never-ending onslaught of ‘present moments’ and my grandfather reminded me of the ultimate reward for actually living that kind of Life.

By the way I am not suggesting “manufacturing kindnesss’ or ‘purposefully creating kindness.’ But I do tend to believe you can affect your kindness by consciously deciding that kindness can win an that kindness does not diminish effectiveness in business.

The truth is that Kindness wins if you simply believe it can get injected into discrete moments of now.

Uh oh. This means that kindness is driven not only by awareness but some common sense and clarity and there is no secret code other than making the choice.

Shit.

No secret code.

Unfortunately, without a code I have to offer the unfortunate truth about kindness — you have to do something, or actually be consistently kind, to actually be kind. What I am talking about is make choices. Choose to be kind and act with kindness.

Yeah. You almost have to defiantly choose to choose to be kind.

As well as choose to live in defiance of all that is not kind.

Look. I am not suggesting you shouldn’t call someone a jackass if they truly are a jackass, or be harshly constructively critical if that is what will get through to someone or even make the hard call where people get pissed. Sometimes business demands you to portray some jerk-like qualities. It does so not because it encourages you to actually be a jerk, or a jack ass, but organizational inertia is incredibly difficult to address and, yes, sometimes you have to kick some ass to get everyone moving.

So maybe you need to selectively be a jack ass.

=============================

“Got to mind the delicate social nuances when you inform some poor fellow that he’s a dumb motherfucker.”

Locke Lamora

================

And, yet, you can be a jack ass without sacrificing kindness.

What I am suggesting is if you carry kindness with you and offer kindness as a thread of all that you do, well, kindness can win and does win. In other words you can still make the tough management decisions, the hard choices, be a little bit of a jack ass on occasion and, yet, in the end everyone will see that you did the right thing ‘well.’ in other words you can win the right way instead of just winning.

I will tell you one thing that I know for sure. While consistently incorporating kindness into your business Life may seem like a bold pioneering choice I would suggest that by doing so it offers some comfortable familiarity <we remember how nice it feels>. There is a small sense of satisfaction; let’s call it “added value”, in everything you do if kindness is injected into the decisions and behavior. It is almost like you have baked a cake and someone has placed your favorite icing on top when they give it to you.

If you do it right, no one really notices that you didn’t put the icing on the cake.

Anyway. Kindness does matter, even in business. And kindness can be done without costing you promotions, effectiveness and character. And isn’t that last thing the most important anyway?

“So it is with minds. Unless you keep them busy with some definite subject that will bridle and control them, they throw themselves in disorder hither and yon in the vague field of imagination … and there is no mad or idle fancy that they do not bring forth in the agitation.”

―

Michel de Montaigne

==============

“Have you noticed that even the busiest people are never too busy to take time to tell you how busy they are?”

―

Bob Talbert

===============

Well. I don’t care what you do, where you work or what matters to you, we all want to get credit for the shit we do and we all know that part of ‘getting credit’ is looking like you are actually doing something.

By the way, this is different than the art of looking busy. Looking busy is all about making it look like you have too much to do and have so much responsibility that:

<a> people will look at you as so important that everyone has given you all that stuff to do, and

<b> no one should dare to give you any more to do because you already have so much to do.

Yes.

This is an art in and of itself. But the art of looking like you are actually doing something is a completely different heinous skill. On this one the person is actually trying to attach themselves to some types of outcomes.

I call this a heinous skill because in order to be truly effective at this art you:

<a> aren’t actually doing a shitload of meaningful stuff,

<b> you invest a lot of energy wandering in the middle of actual responsibility so that you can absolve yourself of bad shit and take credit/responsibility for good shit, and

<c> take credit for a shitload of shit you have never actually ever done.

I thought about this topic because Donald J Trump may be the poster child for the art of looking like you are doing something. He may have a PhD in it. He is a master at the two things which make up a successful “looking like he is doing something:”

Everything revolves around me.

The corollary to this is “nothing good could ever happen unless I was involved”.

The corollary to that is “anything bad that happens is because they didn’t involve me enough”.

=============

“We don’t need all the people they want us to get. Let me tell you ― the one that matters is me. I’m the only one that matters because when it comes to it, that’s what the policy is going to be.”

Donald J Trump

===============

Now. For the everyday schmuck like me it is easy to shuffle paperwork, get on the computer with two screens <one personal, one work so you can switch and not get busted> and a variety of little things at your desk that kind of fill up some down time all the while implying good shit is happening because of me. This is what doers do. Make their doing look essential (and in many cases it actually is). It’s part of showcasing you have value although your work may not look like it’s that valuable.

But at the senior management level, it is truly an art.

They have the ability to paint a picture of ‘my job is so important that my company wouldn’t make it without me’that, well, some really senior people start believing it!

Look. There is truly being essential and then there is claiming to be essential. Those who are essential don’t need to try and look like they are doing something, 95% of the time they are simply in demand. People want them to be involved. That’s how you find essential people. They are the ones in demand. No one demands the jerk who wants to look like they are doing something, but don’t actually do something.

Next.

insure you have enough wins to point to because the bigger the win the less you have to do elsewhere (the art of metaphorical winning).

Metaphorical winning is like having medals for nothing (but you have medals). Resumes are strewn with this type of shit under the guise of “all the things I have done.”

Anyway. Insuring you have enough wins is tricky for the “looking like doing something” artists.

“Lots of little wins” doesn’t work because … uhm … to have lots of real tangible little wins you will actually have had to have done something.

“Lots of little <fake> wins” is difficult to make work because keeping track of things you have supposedly done while simply looking like you were getting something done takes a shitload of work and bullshitting.

Now. Here is where the masters of looking like you are doing something are truly skilled – they are the ones who can envision the future. Huh? They can see no big wins in the immediate future and they recognize that imperils their just looking like they are doing something and they start worry that they may actually have to do something. So they get to work.

What do they do? They find some small win and make it look exponentially better and bigger than it is. They make gestures with flamboyance to create an illusion of “bigness.” It is small stuff that is just bigly in appearance.

Some of what I have written may sound absurd because wins & achievements should be relatively easy to discern, but they are not. Most of the meaningful achievements often look frickin’ small when outlined & explained and, in today’s world, we get encouraged to show big. So the art of looking thoughtfully busy people have an edge here because they are masters at self PR.

That said. Maybe that’s where the rubber hits the road. Find the ones who are comfortable with the small, looking small, but have the bigger achievements.

In the end.

I believe senior people who have mastered the art of looking busy are assholes. They are assholes because business thrives on not looking busy, but actually doing things. Anything less than that, particularly if you are being paid more, is business malpractice.

They look thoughtful but haven’t offered a useful thought in years (all the while claiming to be a thought leader).

They look like they are successful but really don’t know how to actually do the somethings they have claimed to do.

They look like they are essential (mostly because their big wins are wrapped around “I was the energy that lifted everyone – but I cannot point to what things I did) but struggle to consistently show their essentialness other than grand results.

They look like assholes trying to look busy, and thoughtful, and sucking morale & energy away from the ones actually doing good shit and not caring who gets credit for it.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

==============

I have to disagree with Ralphie <which is what I believe his mother called him>. Consistency and <some> predictability gets a bad rap. In other words … consistency is neither foolish nor refuge of solely small minds. Nor is it a hobgoblin of anything <let alone little minds>.

<I am pleased to be able to use the inestimable, and not oft-used, hobgoblin word>

Please note. I write this as a person who abhors being too predictable in personal life and in business. I like going left just because the directions say go right just to see what those who tell you to go right are missing.

But. Here is an uncomfortable truth <at least to me>. Most of us like some consistency in our lives. Aw heck … I will admit it … most of us like a lot <as in shitload> of consistency in our lives.

Oh. And by lives I mean Life as well as in business.

Despite the fact we so often speak of ‘throw caution to the wind’ or that we like to be unpredictable or we like to be spontaneous or ‘be random’, we really don’t.

Yes. We say it, but, rarely do it.

We like consistency and some predictability to provide a solid backbone to our lives. And as a manager of employees you absolutely cherish some consistent behavior day in and day out.

Now, to be fair to Welles & Emerson, when is consistency a refuge of small minds?

Well. I refer to this as “small living.” It is consistent just for comfort sake. It is actually lazy living but made worse because it is living under the guise of something else — lack of any risk. Hence the reason I call it ‘small living.’ This type of consistency keeps you from exploring the bigness Life has to offer those willing to discover what is beyond consistency & predictability boundaries.

Here is what I think about that. That type of thinking, in most countries and languages, inevitably leads to a ornière, rodera, keréknyom, kiima <rut> or être en rut, in een sleur, essere in un solco, olla kiima <be in a rut>.

Rut … as in ‘an elongated hole.’

Oh my. So being too consistent or predictable is living in a hole? Yup.

Here is a reminder about holes. They typically:

<a> have slippery slopes leading down to the bottom,

<b> it is really really difficult to stop sliding down a slippery slope once on it,

<c> you need someone to pull you out of the hole once you are in it <or you stay in it>.

Just as spontaneity is imagined to be better than it actually is <because the other word for ‘spontaneity’ is ‘surprise’ and, despite surprise’s incredible reputation, the truth is that most surprises are bad> predictability can become tantalizingly too attractive. Geez. So I have just said predictability is tantalizingly attractive … as well as consistency … and, uh oh, even spontaneity. That certainly explains why Life can be so confusing at times. All things different but tantalizingly attractive <insert a big fat ‘Yikes’ here>.

Now. Explaining life is a shitload easier than actually living it and doing what needs to be done to maximize it.

Let me explain how difficult it can be. Life best lived walks a razor thin balance of several things:

<please note … this is not research but rather Bruce quasi-vapid thinking>

And I would suggest <using my research brain knowledge> that this razor thin balance is maybe an 80%-15%-5% <with a +/- 2.5% margin of error> Life mix.

Yup. Me, the lover of not being too predictable … accepts the fact that having the majority of Life be familiar and consistent and predictable as, this pains me to admit, good. Because with some people, using my margin of error. less than 2.5% of your entire Life can actually consist of any true spontaneity and you could be one of the happiest non-hobgoblins on the face of the earth.

Oh. Please note that I believe “planned spontaneity’ is possibly the biggest oxymoron of this generation.We are so obsessed with time and ‘maximizing each available moment’ for fear of ‘wasting anything’ that we actually plan our free time.

This kind of seems nuts to me.

I sometimes believe that in our objective driven world focused on predictability <including measuring success on how well we were able to predict our outcome, including happiness — which seems slightly ludicrous> that we have lost sight of the fact Life is often meant to be lived to ‘do’ & to discover and that the discovery is the measurement not the supposed end value of that discovery.

Do I value the road which was rocky, overgrown and comes to an aggravating dead end as more valuable than the one which was scenic, smooth and ends with a beautiful view?

Whew. I don’t know. I would hope that I don’t measure them against each other, but rather accept the discovery as the success. Oh. That is where predictability rears its ugly head.

Predictability and consistency is often measured in today’s time obsessed world as not only the process & the routine, but also in the result. And maybe that is where I do begin to edge into consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. I would be foolish to suggest we don’t all aim for more positive results than negative ones because we do. Why? Simply because we all want to be happy.

But if you live your life solely focused on ‘only doing what will make me happy’ <or has the highest probability of happiness> based on predictable behavior I would suggest you have committed to not only a fairly boring path you still will not be 100% successful in reaching your intended objective.

In business? It sounds frustratingly non innovative <and a sure path down the slippery slope of mediocrity>.

And maybe that is the point.

Too much consistency and predictability only insures a life of happy <possibly content> mediocrity.

Maybe some people are content with mediocrity, but I would suggest that Life isn’t really meant to be mediocre. It is meant to be spectacularly exciting and disappointing. Maybe not all the time <any one of us would eventually get sick if 24 hours a day we rode the world’s largest rollercoaster>, but certainly we deserve to see how high we can go and how low we can get out of.

Why? Because all of that stuff defines our character <plus, who the hell wants their epitaph to be “he was consistent & predictable”?>.

I imagine all I am suggesting is that Life isn’t meant to be little. Too much consistency and predictability simply insures you have made your Life as little as it can be. I am not suggesting you have to go hog-wild and ‘live every moment like it is your last’ <which, in general, I tend to believe is fairly crappy advice> but rather … maybe it is challenging yourself to live on that razor thin balance of consistency, planned spontaneity and true spontaneity.

Look. I know this isn’t easy … and I also understand that there is a huge spectrum of living life possibilities between dangerous freedom and slavery to predictability. I know I personally swing back & forth between the two <which could make anyone’s head a little dizzy on occasion>.

But maybe it is simpler to go ahead and call this type of attitude & behavior as ‘restless consistency.’ Maybe we should aspire to live Life that way … and each of us define our restlessness however we would like, but maintain some restlessness.

I can guarantee only one thing: it will not all go well.

Okay.

I can guarantee two things: it will not all go well but what does go well will most likely go really well.

Well. Maybe I can predict one more thing. Your Life will be bigger. Your business will be bigger.

I’m not sure why you’re so angry at us. We haven’t been around as long as I assume you have been around.

You’ve been voting a lot longer than any of us. You’ve had a say in how our culture and society and economy and political system have been shaped. The state of affairs Sanders is describing has been evolving over several decades. Surely the great wisdom you possess saw most of this coming, the income inequality, the wars for profit, etc. Could it be that we’re easy to rage against because we’re younger and poorer and more vulnerable than you? Could it be that you should be raging against the person you see in the mirror every morning and the generation you associate with every day, but it’s too hard to face the misdeeds of your age group, so you project blame onto us?

—-

A Millennial commenting online

=============

“… whether you know it or not, you’re offspring are already screwed and it not because of Trump.

Lets be honest here… The kids are 20+ trillion dollars in debt. No middle class left. No economic growth. No jobs. A country infiltrated by illegal aliens. Murder rates skyrocketing. Our infrastructure is decimated. Islamic extremist threaten us daily. Russia and China flexing their military muscle and North Korea and Iran on the verge of nuclear weaponry.

And you’re worried about Trump becoming president.

When I see posts such as yours I think to myself how in the world with all the news sources at everyone finger tips can people be so blind to what is right in front of them. Ignorance is a bigger threat to us than Trump can ever be.”

—-

a white Boomer commenting online

========

Carlo Rosselli:

“I had a house: they destroyed it. I had a magazine: they suppressed it. I had ideas, dignity, an ideal: for these I was sent to prison. I had friends: they killed them.”

====================

I am a white guy.

An old white guy.

I don’t loathe being white and I certainly don’t believe simply being white makes one an evil person and it certainly doesn’t increase your odds of being ‘gooder’ or ‘badder’ simply because the color of your skin.

But sometimes, okay, more often than not, I write with some sense of disdain for the older generation of white guys <particularly in business> because we seem to be, or at least becoming, an angry generation.

Angry at the naïve young people.

Angry at some ill-defined establishment <or institution aligned against us>.

Angry at minorities <who appear to be getting a better break than us>.

Angry at women <who used to be more supportive of us>.

Angry at other countries <because, dammit, we are the best and if they improve we don’t look at ‘best’>.

Angry at change.

Angry at no change.

Shit. We are just angry enough at the world we will take selective bits of misinformation and get so angry we start getting angry at a world that just isn’t as bad as we are angry about.

But what is most concerning is that this anger is beginning to extend like a big amorphous blob in every direction. In other words … we are just angry people in an angry world looking for anyone and everywhere to focus our anger.

—

“I cannot be angry with you. Anger would be a waste of the moments we have and would make us weak in the face of the things yet to do.”

—

Some of this amorphous blob-like anger is explainable.

It CAN be easy to feel marginalized when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel less respected when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel like everything was better when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to remember a country that wasn’t obese, a country that did not struggle to educate the young or even a country in which there seemed to be an extreme demand for guns for everyone.

Yeah. I could point out, as an old white guy, what I call the silent minority <because they seem to be REALLY angry>. This silent minority is a slice of white America who has watched from the stagnant sidelines of Life as initiative after initiative is created to ‘right the wrongs’ of the past for women, the LBGT community, the blacks, Asians and … well … anyone non-white.

It may sound disingenuous to suggest this is a legitimate concern when white Americans currently have a majority-minority relationship in the country. But this is a real minority within the majority who has real anger <or maybe strong frustrations> all compounded by some fear/anger mongerers who encourage a sense that “real Americans” are being crowded out.

This anger creates a critique of everyone and everything all threaded through with an unhealthy thread of paranoia driven conjecture driven theories.

That said. It sure does seem like everyone is angry and angry about something or someone.

Well. Okay. The uber rich people aren’t angry … they just don’t care.

But everyone else is.

The aspiring uber rich people are angry at the ‘lazy entitled lower income’ who want money they haven’t earned.

The middle <& going down> income are people angry at everyone.

The lower middle <who are probably hard working & pragmatic but have always had hope to be & do better> people are angry at the aspiring uber & uber.

The lower income people are just angry <because while they don’t see the poor social mobility numbers that I do which state that America is not the land of opportunity … they already know that if they are born lower income they will most likely live & die in lower income>.

And all incomes people are angry at government.

Heck. People are angryat work.

They don’t feel secure in their jobs on top of they are losing hope they will have opportunities to move up on top of the fact it sometimes seems like charisma <and what is being called ‘instincts’> is being valued more than actually knowing what to do <and rational logical thinking>. Therefore those with ability <or the ability to enhance their ability> but don’t meet the charisma criteria <gift of gab, appearance, etc.> or don’t value the charisma thing themselves <they just want to get shit done> … lose hope. And get angry.

In addition. We older folk feel some anger as it seems like the workplace is outplacing us, and our skills, faster than ever before. Workplace generation gaps used to pit older veterans against young rookies but now it is a weird digital driven world, where thinking and deductive skills seem to have less value, and generation gaps in the workplace give a lot of people the sense that they are falling behind and must struggle to avoid being left out.

People are angry at home.

Home values <most homes major investment> struggle. There is uncertainty with the economy on top of uncertainty with time … people work hard to manage time and yet there never seems to be enough of it. We are angry about lack of money, lack of time and lack of perceived control over our own Life.

People are angry because our hope is being fucked with <hope for a better life & hope for better fairness>.

People are happy in life when they think it’s fair … or they get a fair chance. “I don’t need to get to the top … or be the best … or even get the most … I just want to know that I had the opportunity to do so IF I had really been the best or the top or deserved the most.” Most of us realize we are not ‘the best’ or the ‘cream of the crop’ … we are just average Joes & Joettes <everyday schmucks>.

And you know what? Most people, like me, are not angry about being an everyday schmuck <we are okay with it> but we do want to feel like that if by some miracle we were the best, if but for one critical moment, that we would get the opportunity to get what the best get.

Alternatively … if we see few glimpses of opportunity … well … we get angry.

This may be unrealistic <because it is just a ‘what if’ scenario>? But opportunity & hope are fickle funny things. And pretty valuable to us average everyday schmucks.

People are angry at Life.

While Life has always seemed to never miss an opportunity to screw with you … at least in the past it seemed like Life was fair <it took away and gave>.

People have a larger sense of anger.

This is more about a situation in which they feel like they have little or no control over and cannot do anything about. This creates an anger focus in that we start looking for someone and anyone to blame for whatever it is that is making us angry <I would argue the foundation of all his anger is that we are having our hopes and dreams screwed with>.

People are angry because optimism seems to be in the purview of only the naive fools.

We get angry because optimism is a conscious belief … almost an ideology if you elect to be. It has a tangible cognitive attachment to it … almost an expectation of what will be. if we perceive someone placing obstacles in between our optimistic thinking and the tangible cognitive attachment … well … we get fucking angry.

People are angry as they teeter between an anger that we are currently faced with the tragic ongoing horror show of President Trump ‘as a cut price Mussolini and demigod of the intellectually challenged’ and an anger that President Trump, the self-proclaimed change agent, has become mired in his own self proclaimed swamp.

People are angry that the US now consists of a shitload of small towns with shuttered shops, high unemployment in selective geography, low wages, increasing dependency on government support, free food, soup kitchens. Fifty million below the poverty line. Tens of millions without health insurance and those with coverage, struggling to pay their premiums … and 50% of Americans cannot even afford a vacation.

People are angry that the shining light of democracy is quickly taking on the appearance of a kind of banana republic … or a well developed “Somalia with guns, hamburgers, obesity and better drainage.”

As for me? While I was not a huge Clinton fan I get a little angry that a Hillary Clinton message grounded in “love, togetherness and kindness” was trumped by some asshat talking about “destruction, despair and winning is all that matters” — an asshat who publicly stated at a podium in front of a crowd of cheering people that he had no idea what Clinton meant by wanting to make America whole again.

All that said.

We are an angry people in an angry world.

Anger sometimes makes us cling to obvious untruths rather than face the truth — about ourselves, about society, about reality — and therefore we ignore the real truths which would lead to the well needed fundamental difficult changes necessary to diminish our anger.

Personally, I believe 99% of anger is wasted energy.

However. On occasion, anger, if causing some self-refection, can create a sense of reflective responsibility, i.e., what have I done to create his environment of anger? Is there is a real issue that has been raised … and needs to be addressed?

We are an angry group these days and, yet, we seem to remain at least minimally functional. The term “new normal” or “normalizing the current attitude” gets thrown around a lot these days. So much so that it just seems normal <or maybe we just cannot define abnormal well enough to deal with it>. And that is what concerns me as I reflect as an old white guy — functioning in an angry world as the new normal. We have mastered functional anger.

Look. People have legitimate reason to be angry, but we also have legitimate reasons to assume some personal responsibility for the legitimate parts as well as legitimate fundamental changes to solve our legitimate anger.

I will end this by suggesting anger is most often driven by a clash of ideas — even if you want to argue there is rampant ignorance <you can still have ideas even if you are ignorant>. A country is always wracked by conflict where the discussion can be raucous, or whispered, at different times in history, but it resides in all times nonetheless.

I would point out America is constantly morphing. The clash of ideas is actually what makes America great. Its lack of simplicity is what makes it great. Therefore it is actually the constant conflict that makes it great.

Think of the country as a number of tectonic plates constantly shifting and crashing into each other with earthquakes and trembles and ultimately soaring mountain ranges … and sinking islands. Those tectonic plates are the fractured sections of class, culture, race, income levels, social status, generational norms, educational attainment and, well, even individual state identity.

But possibly the largest tectonic civilization plates are what was, what is & what will be. The tectonic plates of time and everything that resides upon them … the mountain ranges of attitudes & desires and the valleys of “what I have and what I believe is mine to keep” <the latter can be material or mental>.

Anger is only good if it creates some change. I worry that we are, well, just angry and not using that anger for anything other than just being angry. We should admit to our anger, admit it is an angry world, and we should be using this anger to solve the anger.

Every time I watch the Olympics I am reminded of a topic which is not discussed often enough in business … angry competition. I call it angry strategizing.

Yeah. The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.

While the Olympics are supposed to be about the love of competition and a better world through sports competition it is actually about determining the best in the world. And that, my friends, is not about love it is about the rage of competition.

While I will surely give a nod to respect shown to other great competitors and the aftermath camaraderie that can only be had among the best in the world who have competed the hardest and recognize greatness around them at the Olympics, and how they do so even in loss, I must point out that the Olympic best carry a certain rage into their competitiveness. It may not be the traditional version of anger but it is most certainly a version of anger.

It drives them to compete with the intent to beat the shit out of whomever they are competing against and be the best they can be so they can actually be the best.

I say all that because I don’t believe enough business people strategize with some anger. Anger that … well … there are some stupid ideas out there …

some stupid opinions

some stupid attitudes

competitors say and do stupid things

and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.

I know that I have sat in a meeting room with some business partners and looked around at the competition and what they were doing and saying and, well, got angry. Angry enough to want and do something about it.

By being angry in business <no, I am not talking about being some anger management candidate> I mean planning angry, developing a strategy thinking with some anger about the status quo, maybe even having some anger toward conventional thinking and certainly some anger against whomever you are competing <but you can still respect the ones who deserve the respect while doing so> is effective and leads to effective business strategy to create real distinction in the marketplace.

To be clear.

Anger, to me, is much more useful than disdain. Disdain breeds some arrogance and certainly diminishes the capabilities of the competition as you think about competing against them. In your scoffing at them it suggests that it is … is … well … just not worth even thinking about. Anger, on the other hand, suggests you are facing what is straight on, in its face, and taking it head on. Anger guides you not toward some flimsy white space but directly into the fray — directly toward the space you want in a market <whether it is already occupied or not> and take it. Or, as Admiral Nelson once said, “you can do no wrong by putting yourself as close to the enemy as possible.”

And you know what?

In business strategy that is smart. So that is why I call this the angry business strategy.

To be clear, there is only one real way to win and that is without cheating. I say that because anger almost forces you to not only recognize that there is no virtue to be found in taking a shortcut <although shortcuts never really exist anyway> but that there is no long cut or shortcut but rather simply getting up and going — and competing to win.

I am sure someone will point out that it may simply be you look around and get aggravated by what you see and decide to do something about it. But I think if you have the team, and you have the product or service and you actually have the means to make your mark in the business world … then … well … it is okay if you look around at the competition and the competitive business world and get a little pissed not just aggravated.

You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.

This is crazy … I have a better product.

This is nuts … I can’t believe people believe that shit.

Your anger puts an edge on what you decide to say and do.

Far too often we sit around and have pot after pot of strong coffee and have intellectual discussions on how to smartly effectively compete. We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then go ahead and be anything but the best.

So … you know what?

If you are better, and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge. You get on with getting on. You just get competitively angry and stand in the middle of the field and say “here I am, and I am not going down.”

I am not suggesting being stupid about competing. Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.

But I am suggesting the anger puts some attitude into your strategy and tactics. It puts a sharper edge into your sense of competitive purpose.

And here is what I know.

If it isn’t blind anger but rather competitive anger you won’t tiptoe into your messaging and go to market strategy. You will stride in with some swagger, some confidence and clearly some strong purposeful messaging.

I think … no … I know more businesses would do better to attack their business strategy with some anger.

Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.

Get pissed that people are accepting less than the best and less than real truth.

Get pissed at yourself if you are in a position where you don’t believe enough in yourself and your offering to be able to get pissed.

Yeah.

I do believe more businesses should strategize with some anger. As Tupac said … not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.

“Don’t try to behave as though you were essentially sane and naturally good. We’re all demented sinners in the same cosmic boat — and the boat is perpetually sinking.”

—-

Aldous Huxley

=============

Ok.

This is about doing shit and doing the shit you really want to do … in business.

This is not about ‘finding your passion’ or ‘maximizing your potential’ … this is simply about something you actually decide you want to do … maybe something that is decided you should do … and are going to do.

Now.

I am sure I am going to completely bastardize the true meaning of this quote but I think about it with business in mind. This thought piece is a derivative of my “how far would you go to solve a problem” business thought.

In that piece I discussed saving your business. In this piece I am discussing saving your business objective or goal.

So.

Far too often businesses ‘hedge their bets’ against specific stretch goals & objectives. They sit in fancy conference rooms eating fancy snacks reviewing annual sales goals and business objectives and talk about ‘reaching high’ and then … well … blink. They start thinking, what they call, pragmatically … or practically.

Yeah.

They start ‘hedging.’ And when that happens not meeting the objective becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

What do I mean?

It is a tough, but reachable, objective and, yet, they don’t take the necessary complete steps to attain it. I am not suggesting this is easy.

Leading a business, particularly a larger one with some overarching politics and ‘management assessment mumbo jumbo’, is fraught with peril.

If you do what it takes to reach an objective and fall short … falling short looks … well … shorter. You invested and the investment REALLY did not pay off.

If you do what it takes to reach an objective and reach it … well … sometimes reaching it comes with a cost and your ROI don’t look as good as it could <by the way … this is a wacky version of “you did good … just not good enough”>.

Reality suggests to anyone with half a business brain that reaching true, not fake, stretch goals or aggressive objectives come at a cost. And that is where this Virgil quote comes into play. The Virgil quote is literally translated as “If I cannot deflect the will of superior powers, then I shall move the River Acheron” but more commonly translated as “If I cannot deflect the will of heaven, then I shall move hell.”

This is a version of “do what it takes to get where you want.”

I say that because I did a little research <mostly because I am not intellectual enough to actually read Virgil and like it>. Apparently in the Aeneid it is the goddess Juno who says this quote in a state of rage and defiance. She admits she doesn’t believe she can win but defiantly takes action anyway. Even better <to me> she is standing up against her peers … defending her right to do what she believes should be done, her own way, whether any of her peers approve.

And you know what?

If they do not approve, she will ignore them and “move the ancient river in her favor” … or … in my words … it becomes time to try and defy gravity.

She refuses to sit idle while others do nothing.

Look.

I will never <ever> suggest sacrificing values & ethics to win or reach an objective. My point is that to reach some objectives and aggressive goals you have to be defiant. You have to rebel against ‘hedging’ and sometimes you gotta step up and do what it takes. I do believe you can raise hell if heaven isn’t getting you where you need to be … without sacrificing ethics and values. And I do believe most managers in business need someone to rebel against their ‘fear of risk, failure, looking bad’ asses.

Anyway.

When I speak with businesses about the only thing I can tell them for sure … is that the future is uncertain. But I can also tell the with certainty that if history is a guide then we who are defiant, are determined, and do whatever it takes are the ones who push through the seemingly impossible and make it possible.

If you are a maker, a builder, an architect of fate … you do not hedge your bets nor do you let resources sit idle in inaction and, frankly, sit in inability to do shit that may assist in … well … doing shit.

=========

“I shall find a way or make one.”

—

Robert Peary

=====

At some point in business you are forced to pick a side, pick a battle and pick a moment.

At some point in business you are forced to steer … or be steered.

At some point in business you are an architect of your own fate or fate will build you.

At some point in business you are forced to face adversity or be suffocated by that which stands in your way.

That said.

I could argue that the real difference in business remains one simple distinction. Those people who do something and those people who do nothing.

Ok.

Maybe the real difference in business is those people who do something when an aggressive goal is placed in front of them and those who people who do … well … less than it takes. And that is where determination steps into this discussion.

Because ‘less than’, in business, is clever. It can cleverly disguise itself in little line items and subtle decisions to hold back little things in reserve.

=====

“You give up the world line by line.

Stoically.

And then one day you realize that your courage is farcical.

It doesn’t mean anything. You’ve become an accomplice in your own annihilation and there is nothing you can do about it. Everything you do closes a door somewhere ahead of you.

And finally there is only one door left.”

Cormac McCarthy

======

Without really intending to subvert your effort to attain some sales goal you ultimately give up your objective line by line. In other words … you’ve become an accomplice in your own annihilation.

What is maybe worse than that?

As you hedge your bets you actually close door after door that maybe could have led you to your goal. Without steadfast determination, and maybe a little defiance to safe business protocol, you will inevitably find yourself standing at the only door left available for you … not reaching the goal and having excuses as to why you didn’t reach an aggressive goal.

Your main excuse? You were less aggressive than you needed to be to reach the aggressive goal.

I will conclude with the obvious.

Writing about this is easy.Doing what needs to be done is hard.

All I can suggest is that you tie your values and ethics on tight … and then go raise hell if heaven ain’t helping you make the objective.

All I can suggest is if you are in a position to actually do something just make sure you look in the mirror and make sure you are not an accomplice to your own annihilation.

All I can suggest is that if you want something, really want to DO something, more often than not … in most businesses which tend to be either lethargic or less than efficient … you got to aggressively create your own path.